P L J 1980 Supreow Court 346
G. SAFDA& SHAH AND KAKAU ELAHH CHAUBAK, U
No. 24-P of 1979 decided on 24-4-1979.
NWFPTenaBcy Aet(XX»f 1950)—S. 77, Second Group items (f) «td (g)— Default in payment of rent by tenant/lessee—Suit for recovery of rent end evictionfrom agricultural land—Revenue Courts competent to entertain (be suit—All Courts below recording verdict of default against lessee—Contention that landlord had short delivered possession of land and plea of reduction of rent on its basis—Contention not-upheld—Superstructure raised by tenant wihout consent of landlord cannot be compensated—Held: High Court rightly maintained orders of Courts below. (Paras. 7, 10}
Kartmullah Durrani ASC and Qesim Imam AOR (absent) for Petitioner. Ds(t fff heartag: 24-4-1979.
Karam Elahte Chaahan, /.—Zarbaz Khan (hereinafter called the landlord) filed a suit against the petitioner for the recovery of arrears of rent for the period Kftarif 1971 to Rabi 1974 and for bis eviction from the agricultural land !a dispute on account of the default in the payment of the aforesaid rent.
2. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 46,000 andalso ordered eviction of the petitioner on 6th December, 1977.
3, The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success 8* the same was-dismissed by the Collector on 20th December, 1977*
'4, The petitioner filfid a Revision whkL &13O stet tee s*i« tats and was dismissed by the Commissioner OB llib Ms !97R
.,-; ; $. 'A furtner Revision f-.~," '.-, .ait petiuoaer before sise Board of Revenue-, also failed and was dismisses ©B 20sh July, 197$. :,
6. The* petitioner then filed a writ petition being W.P, No. 587/78 which was dismissed fey a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court on 16th oflanoary^ J97J- The petmooer has come up in a petition for appeal Teave-ag«lE«f t&e same ft this Court,
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner bai argued that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of the respondent landlord. This contentionlias been met fully in the order of the High Court and it has been held that the petitioner being a tenant/lessee of the respondent, a Revenue Court was quitecompetent to entertain the suit on the subjects involved therein. The finding of the High Court seems to be quite in order and the learned counsel covld notpoint out any error Sn it.
8. Learned counsel then argued that there was no defeat in the payment of rent on the part of his client. Here again all the Courts below have recorded averdict against the petitioner and have held him defaulter after attending to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record. In these circumstances the rinding of the Courts below were rightly maintained by the High Court.
9. It was next submitted by the learned counsel that the landlord had noi given full area which was leased out to the petitioner and withheld delivery olpossession of a part thereof, and as such, if the rent for the area not delivered is proportionately reduced, then there will be no default on the part of the petitioner. All the Courts below have found no merit in this plea. They have nek that there was no short delivery and consequently the tenant was not entitled toany proportionate reduction of rent. Learned counsel could find no flaw in this finding and, therefore, the same is not open to exception before us.
10. Last objection by the learned counsel was that Courts below have not Allowed compensation to the petitioner for certain super structures madeon the land in dispute. It was held that these superstructures were made Without the consent of the landlord and hence no claim for the same could havebeen advanced. The view taken seems to bs perfectly in accord with the law
relevant OB the subject.
. . 11. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.